Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer
Article lacks details to support its premise.
Very poor job of unbiased presentation. Excellent job of propaganda.
For instance checking EPA regs that have stunted business. No detailed discussion is presented re page and verse. What specifically will cause health problems? The new EPA will have us living a cave man lifestyle to ensure our safety. However, all we hear are generalizations about downstream health hazards. This stuff is so nebulous it constitutes nothing but propaganda. the writer's conclusion that Reps are simply obstructions, reveal his true intent of propagandizing for the Dems. Game over, just another hack minion with access to media publishing.
Obama's suggested legislation has been soundly defeated in a bi-partisan fashion and is his only claim to his campaign promise of encouraging bi-partisanship. Let's hear a story of why Obama's offering have been so soundly rejected in a bi-partisan vote.
Are the thse the same economists who told Obama that he could say with confidence that if he hadn't got the economy on track by the 3rd year he wouldn't run for a 2nd term?
Are these the same advsiors who told obama to say the UE rate would stay under 8% if his legislation was passed?
Why wouldn't Harry Reid bring the Rep bills to the floor just to embarass them.
Heve any of the bills by the house been bipartisan and HR refuses to bring them up for a vote?
Same advisors who told obama solyndra and other sonn failed solar companies was a good investment?
Same advisors who think it is a good idea to print money? Remeber when Geithner was questioned he said no way would we monitize in the US! Oops!!! where is the news story to explore that flub?
Same advisors who shucked and jived the numbers to get obamacare passed?
Yep we believe just becaiuse these people are economists, who went to the same schools as the economists who disagree with their classmates conclusions. We the people have not been served by this article except to reveal the traitorous nature of the news media.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
LOL, Brilliant article. LOL.
So they interview 5 economists and not even those 5 economists agree, but the author still comes to the conclusion that economists agree that the jobs bill will not create jobs?
In reality none of them even say that it won't create jobs, they say they will.
There is no way to create jobs in the next 6 months which is what Obama needs. That is impossible.
Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, agreed that the bills would have almost no effect on job creation in the short term, though he was slightly more optimistic about their long-term prospects.
So a bill that in the long term creates jobs is a bad thing? Sorry, this article is completely dismissable and I would have been embarrassed to have posted it.
|
Fantastic.....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
Despite what you may think. I am not a democrat, but calling the Republican bills jobs bills is just an outright lie.
|
"At the heart of the GOP jobs package is a push for rolling back regulations -- and gutting environmental laws that regulate clean air and water -- to spur job growth."
Leave it to the Huffington Post to sensationalize.
So, tell us, how many jobs will EPA Tier 3 create?
You do know what I'm talking about, right? EPA Tier 2 requires Sulfur levels at or below 30 ppm. That came on-board 2006-2008.
Tier 3 requires Sulfur to be at or below 10 ppm.
How do you get the Sulfur out? Do you talk to the Sulfur until it become depressed and commits suicide? No, you spend lots and lots of money and lots and lots of time running Sulfur redux operations.
Tier 3 is slated to be published
now. This is July 2012. I think I said on another thread that I suspect they'll hold off full implementation until after the elections.
And the price of gasoline is going to increase by $0.20 to $0.25 --- uh, wholesale.
Retail? I don't know, except that retail will be higher than $0.20 to $0.25 per gallon.
So, brilliant one, if the typical American household is going to lose $30 to $60/month paying higher gasoline prices, how is that going to create jobs?
Amused...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday
The pipeline would create a LOT of jobs - GOOD paying jobs, for a very long time.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday
I have heard / seen various estimates but it runs into the thousands. It is not just the pipe line workers, its all the other ancillary jobs from all over the country -
|
Quote:
Resource Guide for Jobs on TAPS
There are more than 2000 people employed on the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company operates the pipeline and has over 800 employees. The rest of the work force are hired by contractors providing necessary work to operate, maintain and support the pipeline.
|
TAPS Resources
TAPS is the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System. There you go: a measly 800 full-time employees and up to 1,200 independent contractors on a casual or part-time as-needed basis.
They used really bizarre claims in their proposals, like "
20,000 person-years" of employment. That's an actual quote. They probably paid a lot of English majors, lawyers, public affairs specialists, advertising specialists and others to come up with a meaningless Orwellian phrase like "person-years."
Oh, yeah, one other thing. That Canadian tar sands oil is garbage. It's full of Sulfur, not to mention it's, well, tar sands....very heavy oil -- useless for the most part except for diesel and asphalt.
It's going to cost an helluva lot more than $0.20 to $0.25/gallon to get the Sulfur in that down to 10 ppm. Remember you using low Sulfur oils like WTI and Bonny Light, Tijuana Light, Arabian Light, Basra Light etc that only have 0.1% to 0.2% Sulfur in the first place.
Didn't get suckered on XL....
Mircea
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
